lets have a moment of honesty here obama supporters...

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

I have a question for you: If you were a Floridian Democrat who, knowing about the state having been penalized, decided to stay home, how would you feel if it were decided that the votes would count after all?
Answer that, you hack.

news flash:  we are in a minority.

the vast majority of americans dont give a flip about arcane party rules and intra-party squabbles.

so i dont know how many people actually 'stayed home'  seems like turnout was pretty high.

you all just want to rig it up to were you can get obama to win.  some how some way.  you have your work cut out for you in florida.

Turnout was not high. It was higher on the GOP side. Has also happened only in wo other states: Utah and Alabama.

[Thomas Jackson]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

BWWAHAHAHAH! Hackery?

Your idea of fairness = anything to get the beast elected.
Your idea of fairness = counting Michigan when the filthy beast was the only name on the ballot.
Your idea of fairness = breaking rules and then benefiting from them.

[Ben.]

Kinda O/T but Rendell got a pretty tough grilling on MP today... very shaky when it came to the argument "Hillary should win because she's won TX, OH, NY and CA" (and of course he included FL and MI).

[SPQR]

give me one good reason why the tax payers of florida should have to pay for *another* primary, when millions of floridians voted in the first one?

In fact they shouldn't.Florida's Democratic Party ed up?TOO BAD.

[WalterMitty]

" lets have a moment of honesty here obama supporters... " by WalterMitty

LOL

i understand hackery

Well, we agree on that.

of course im a political hack.  but im an honest one.

if obama had won florida i would say the same thing...we shouldnt toss those votes out the window.

in fairness, im willing to have a re-vote in michigan since obama wasnt on the ballot (even though that was his fault.)

[Alcon]

In other words, Clinton (and the state of Florida) should both be actively rewarded for breaking the Democratic Party's rules, while Obama (and all of the other states) should be actively punished?

[Mr. Morden]

In other words, Clinton (and the state of Florida) should both be actively rewarded for breaking the Democratic Party's rules, while Obama (and all of the other states) should be actively punished?

I agree with you that the Jan. 29 primary shouldn't count, but how did Clinton break the party rules?

[Alcon]

In other words, Clinton (and the state of Florida) should both be actively rewarded for breaking the Democratic Party's rules, while Obama (and all of the other states) should be actively punished?

I agree with you that the Jan. 29 primary shouldn't count, but how did Clinton break the party rules?

Maybe not party rules, but was there not a mutual agreement not to campaign that she broke?  I may be mis-remembering.  It was posted here, after all, and that sometimes means it's a little, err, "filtered."

[Meeker]

In other words, Clinton (and the state of Florida) should both be actively rewarded for breaking the Democratic Party's rules, while Obama (and all of the other states) should be actively punished?

I agree with you that the Jan. 29 primary shouldn't count, but how did Clinton break the party rules?

Wasn't she supposed to take her name off the Michigan ballot?

[??????????]

In other words, Clinton (and the state of Florida) should both be actively rewarded for breaking the Democratic Party's rules, while Obama (and all of the other states) should be actively punished?

I agree with you that the Jan. 29 primary shouldn't count, but how did Clinton break the party rules?

Maybe not party rules, but was there not a mutual agreement not to campaign that she broke?  I may be mis-remembering.  It was posted here, after all, and that sometimes means it's a little, err, "filtered."

Yes, she "fundraised" (campaigned) in Ft. Myers, Tampa and Miami.

[Mr. Morden]

In other words, Clinton (and the state of Florida) should both be actively rewarded for breaking the Democratic Party's rules, while Obama (and all of the other states) should be actively punished?

I agree with you that the Jan. 29 primary shouldn't count, but how did Clinton break the party rules?

Wasn't she supposed to take her name off the Michigan ballot?

No.  Here is the sequence of events:

The DNC draws up rules that state that any candidate campaigning in a state that breaks the calendar rules will face delegate sanctions.

The DNC changes its mind, because it doesn't want to play referee on what constitutes "campaigning" in a state.  Instead, they just strip any offending state of 100% of their delegates.  But there are no sanctions against campaigning there.  It's just that the campaigning won't be very valuable, since the contest doesn't award any delegates.

The Democratic parties in IA, NH, NV, and SC demand that all the candidates pledge not to campaign in MI or FL (the four state pledge).  Their fear is that, even with no delegates, the candidates might try to get momentum out of "victories" in MI and FL, and so they'd spend some time campaigning there....which would mean less time campaigning in the chosen four states.  All the candidates except Gravel and Kucinich agree to the pledge.  It should be emphasized, this is a pledge made to those four states, and has nothing to do with what's required by DNC rules.

Most of the candidates take their names off the Michigan ballot.  This goes above and beyond what was required of them in the pledge.  But Edwards and Obama presumably figured that, without any campaigning, Clinton would probably win Michigan, so by leaving their names off the ballot, they can prevent her from even claiming a moral victory.  (Since no one would seriously give her any credit for beating Uncommitted.)

Even though it wasn't really required of her in the pledge, Clinton faces some criticism in NH for leaving her name on the Michigan ballot.  People say she's trying to have it both ways on Michigan, and isn't really respecting NH's special status.  Her response is that it doesn't really matter whether her name is on the Michigan ballot, since "It's clear that the vote in Michigan isn't going to count for anything."

[perdedor]

Perhaps had all of the candidates been on the ballot in Florida, there would be basis for arguing that their delegates (along with Michigan's) should be seated. However, since all of the candidates short of Hillary Clinton decided to support the DNC and not appear on the Florida/Michigan ballots...their primaries should be null and void. However, if both states wish to hold a second primary that is in coordination with the DNC's rules, in which all of the candidates were on the ballot, I would certainly get behind it.

[Meeker]

Thanks Modern.


I'm opposed to allowing them to re-vote. It's a like a birthday party for 7-year-olds. Everyone's lining up for a slice of cake, and then Florida and Michigan cut. Because they cut in front of everyone, they are told they don't get cake. But instead they just go to the back of the line and since they're at the back of the line they end up getting an entire cake (getting to go last and be the final say in the nomination). Allowing them a revote would be awarding their rule breaking.

[Jake]

The hypocrisy over Florida is hilarious; certainly some of the better entertainment from the campaign so far. Honestly, if the tables would turn, the race/disenfranchisement card would certainly be played by Obama's campaign. That's absolutely undeniable. That said, no one should count results from a state that wasn't campaigned in.

The right thing to do is schedule a primary for April or May and have the party pay for it. Anything else would be unfair.

[Mr. Morden]

Perhaps had all of the candidates been on the ballot in Florida, there would be basis for arguing that their delegates (along with Michigan's) should be seated. However, since all of the candidates short of Hillary Clinton decided to support the DNC and not appear on the Florida/Michigan ballots...their primaries should be null and void.

Again, I agree that those primaries shouldn't count.  But, to be clear, Obama *was* on the ballot in Florida, just not in Michigan.  And as I outlined above, the decision about whether or not to appear on the ballot had nothing to do with DNC rules and everything to do with the question "Do I gain anything by participating in this nonbinding beauty contest?"

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

the democrats have rules that make it hard for a front runner to establish a huge early lead...since no states are winner take all.

Take it up with the DNC.   You forget this is the Democratic Party's procedures for selecting their delegate, not an election for President.  The party has the absolute right to establish their own procedures to select their nominee.

Call Howard Dean and quit crying cause HILLARY can't close the deal.  I'm tired of hearing how Obama can't close it......the bitch can't close the deal.   

[Smash255]

First off both Michigan and Florida new the rules and they also new the consequences if they broke them.  They chose to break them anyway and were punished for it by having their delegates stripped away.

If the DNC let Florida and Michigan break the rules without any consequences or following through with what they said they would than many more states would have jumped the gun to move their primaries up.  It was already getting insane with everyone moving the primaries up allowing the FLA & MI to go through with no consequences would have resulted in having primaries before Christmas which would have been insane.

Secondly everyone new the results would not count.  This is something everyone agreed upon, including Hillary.  You can't say the results would not count hold a vote and then afterward decide to suddenly count them.  It was obvious that many people stayed home due to the results not counting due to the GOP having higher turnout than the Dems when turnout across the board has been much higher on the Dem side even in states much more Republican than Florida.

When questioned why she was leaving her name on the Michigan ballot she said it doesn't matter because the results WOULD NOT COUNT.  She even stated it wouldn't count and now wants it to...

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

The right thing to do is schedule a primary for April or May and have the party pay for it. Anything else would be unfair.

Do you mean the state party or the DNC?

If the DNC, why should they pay for rule breakers? The DNC warns what will happen if states break the schedule. Florida and Michigan ignore this and do it anyway. The DNC follows through on the promise. Now the DNC should pay for those states to fix it? They got into this mess themselves, let them pay for the solution.

[Jake]

Either. It's in the DNC's interest to resolve this in the least politically damaging way. That means seating delegates from Michigan and Florida through an election that won't be seen to favor one side (caucus-Obama; current results-Clinton) over the other. Now, the DNC can get on their high horse and refuse to pay for a primary or refuse to seat delegates, but they're going to take a hit in November.

[Democratic Hawk]

Both MI and FL should be re-run as primaries - perhaps all postal . Should be more cost effective than staffing precincts

Clinton won FL by default; Obama wasn't even on the MI ballot. How fair would seating delegates as things stand be? For Clinton, to argue that things should stand as they are, is retrospective opportunism. She knew the rules as much as other candidates did and if they didn't like them, they should have opposed them

In fact, all candidates should have stood shoulder to shoulder and told the DNC to go shove their sanctions. I don't care whether this would have pissed off IA, NH, NV and SC - voters would have been able to cast their preferences without prejudice. When it comes to the all-important Electoral College, FL and MI do carry more weight

It was boneheaded thing to do - disenfranchising MI and FL Democrats their say . Not to mention putting Democratic chances come November at risk

Dave

[Democratic Hawk]

What carries legal precedence? National DNC rules or state law?

The whole primary/caucus schedule needs a radical overhaul, perhaps starting with IA and NH (out of respect for tradition, if nothing else), but having all concluded by the end of April, at the latest

The DNC and RNC will have their work cut out for them persuading the states to come onboard- but anything that avoids this kind of controversy with MI and FL is surely desirable

Dave

[Mr. Morden]

What carries legal precedence? National DNC rules or state law?

The states are free to hold elections whenever they want, but the DNC can make up whatever rules it likes about which primaries award delegates.  No one else can overturn those rules that the national parties make.  There are numerous legal precedents to that effect.

[ottermax]

I think there should be a re-vote, and a primary. Where the money will come from? Who knows, but if Clinton wants those delegates so badly, she should advocate for a fair revote, maybe her vote share will go up...

[Mr. Morden]

Remember that the state parties are still free to collect unlimited soft money donations for "party building" activities, and a primary or caucus would fall under that category.  So one check from George Soros could solve the "where do we get the money?" problem.

[bgwah]

Ya really do have to hand it to Walter. Naso is probably the only other person on this forum who could make a completely retarded thread and get it to four pages with a tiny amount of effort.